4 ms·
I see by your last sentence where you're leaning so I'm probably wasting my time, but I'm replying anyway. :) I've never had my house robbed, but I still lock
by YooLi 16y ago
I see by your last sentence where you're leaning so I'm probably wasting my time, but I'm replying anyway. :)
I've never had my house robbed, but I still lock the doors and have an alarm system. No one on my street has been robbed, but I can't just assume this street won't ever get burgled because I know that it does happen. So, I'm careful to lock up, but I'm not so scared I have inch bars on the windows, a guard dog, a watchman on guard, etc. There is just enough of a deterrent that it is a hassle for someone looking for a quick and easy break-in.
- mistermann 16y agoRight....a proper assessment and response to the risk. The question is, is our response to the supposed threat of terrorism proper? Your response to your threat is essentially cost free (except for the alarm I guess). The cost of the west's response to one terrorist attack is anything but free, it is measured in the Billions or Trillions, depending on how you look at it, not to mention the decrease in quality of life, lost productivity, etc. And you are correct in where I am leaning....the timing of "attacks" often seems a bit too convenient, ie: the recent debate in Europe over the level and manner of US airport security measures. To me, the theory that there are non-insignificant amounts of terrorists intent on attacking us, but these attacks have all (since we have had no successful attacks in the last ~ 10 years) been prevented by the security measures and organizations, is comical. So where does Occam's Razor lead you? :)